Canadian True Crime - The Death of Laura Letts [2]

Episode Date: November 17, 2020

[Part 2 of 2] The RCMP continue their investigation into the death of Laura Letts, and make an interesting discovery. From there, things would spiral completely out of control.Look out for early, ad-free release on CTC premium feeds: available on Amazon Music (included with Prime), Apple Podcasts, Patreon and Supercast. Full list of resources, information sources, credits and music credits:See the page for this episode at www.canadiantruecrime.ca/episodes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Canadian True Crime is a completely independent production, funded through advertising and direct donations. The podcast contains coarse language, adult themes, and content of a violent and disturbing nature. Listener discretion is advised. This is part two of a two-part series. Where we left off, Peter Beckett had given his version of events to police, both in an initial statement and during a recreation where he went out on a boat with three investigators. But a lot of other information had started to come out, suggesting that there was a dark side of the marriage between Peter and Laura, which seemed at odds with Peter's side of the story. Peter was described by some as overbearing and domineering.

Laura's cousin and friend Virginia reported Laura telling her that Peter predicted that she would die of drowning. And even though this was hearsay, the RCMP had spoken to the psychologist, Laura had been seeing to help her deal with her unhappy marriage, and learned how an unspecified incident led to Laura filing a physical abuse complaint against Peter, which led to them separating for three months. They reconciled and then Laura had a falling out with her family, who found out that Peter had been married before, which went against the teachings of their religion. Laura and her parents became estranged, which devastated her. The RCMP also found that out that Peter had a few different stories about what happened, and his behaviour after Laura's

death was considered odd, like the way he wanted to know all about what Google Earth showed of Shelter Bay. When looking into Peter and Laura's finances, the RCMP made an interesting discovery. In the years leading up to Laura's death, she had life insurance policies worth almost $850,000. But the year before she died, she lowered her coverage when she and Peter purchased that large motor home. The next year, just a few weeks before Laura's death, Peter took out accidental death insurance policies on himself and Laura that increased her coverage. He maintained that Laura was the one who handled the life insurance, and it wasn't him, but the RCMP found his fingerprints on the document. And that's not all. At the same. At the same time,

same time, investigators discovered that he also applied for an additional life insurance policy for $300,000. It never made it past the application stage, though. It was declined because of issues with Peter's health. And also, in the weeks before Laura's death, Peter transferred $50,000 from the couple's joint checking account into a GIC term deposit, but in his name only. Ultimately, the RCMP discovered that Peter Beckett stood to gain financially if Laura died. This included the almost $850,000 in life insurance, as well as her teacher's pension, which amounted to around $3,500 a month. But while this was potentially available to him, he hadn't yet tried to make a claim against

any of the policies. The lawyer for Laura's family would constantly. contact the RCMP to tell them about a strange visit from Peter. The week after Laura's death, Peter showed up asking for a copy of her will. The lawyer had drawn one up in the 90s and then another one from 2007, which is the year that the couple separated before reuniting. Peter furiously thumbed through the pages of both wills, only to discover that neither of them mentioned him at all,

not as a beneficiary or an executor. This infuriated him. The lawyer had to step out of the room for a minute. When he came back, he saw Peter rifling through his files and told him to leave. Peter and Laura were both good friends with the principal of the elementary school where Laura taught. Her name was Wendy, and Peter called her and asked for her help in planning Laura's memorial service. particularly with picking out a fountain which he planned to unveil at the service. On the way, Peter asked Wendy if she'd mind if they made a quick stop into his lawyer's office.

Wendy reported to the RCMP that Peter told his lawyer that Laura did not have a will and he had serious suspicions that her parents had had their lawyer manufacture a fake one, which was that one from 2007 when they were separated. Peter then asked Wendy for her opinion. She said they did not have a case and in any event Laura's estate was modest. And while Laura's parents were wealthy cattle farmers, it would be a big stretch for Peter to somehow be able to claim Laura's future inheritance. Wendy told him that whatever he was trying to do here, it was not worth it.

But Peter insisted it was a matter of principle. The RCMP had wire-tapped his phone and captured a call he made to Laura's aunt Margaret nine months after her death. In the conversation, Peter can be heard saying he was willing to fight for his share of Laura's inheritance. Quote, I'm still their son-in-law, right? So what was due to Laura is certainly due to me? Margaret asked if he would challenge that in court, and Peter said, of course. Quote, And I believe they caused her death.

The RCMP also spoke to a friend and farm owner who Peter drove trucks for. The man named Frank said that he went to visit Peter the night he arrived home from the trip where Laura drowned. He said Peter wouldn't look at him in the eye. Frank felt a strangeness and he instinctively felt afraid of Peter. Peter's reaction, could be explained away by the fact that people in crisis situations don't often react in the way

that they're expected to. But Frank had more. He described Peter eating furiously while looking for credit card bills to see if the debt would be covered by Laura's life insurance. Frank also said that later on, Peter insisted the signature on Laura's will was a forgery and even went so far as to accuse Frank of being in on a plot with Laura's parents to remove him from her will. So the RCMP investigation uncovered a lot of information on Peter and Laura's relationship, odd behaviour from Peter before and after Laura's death, as well as inconsistencies and detail between the stories he told about how she died. But there would be more to come.

As you'll remember, according to Peter's statement to police, He was fishing at the stern or back of the zodiac, and Laura was reading an umbrella in the bow or the front. He said Laura must have fallen off when a gust of wind caught the umbrella she was holding. Once he realized, he grabbed one of his two fishing rods to reel it in, and as he did, the boat drifted. He grabbed the second rod, and when he realized his wife was submerged in the water, he dropped or threw the rod, in the lake. He couldn't remember which. The RCMP wanted to search the bottom of the lake to see if they could find evidence to compare to this story. In June of 2011, 10 months after Laura's death, they found Peter's fishing rod and her umbrella, just as he said. But their proximity to each other

did not match Peter's story. They were discovered close to each other on the bottom of the lake, when there should have been some distance between them. And what's more, the location they were found was not consistent with the direction Peter had claimed the zodiac was going. What did this mean? The RCMP weren't sure, but it did indicate that Peter may not have been telling the truth. On August 12, 2011, just days before the first anniversary of Laura's death, 56-year-old Peter Beckett was arrested and charged with her first-degree murder.

Laura's family released a statement to the media expressing relief that the investigation was over. As a family, we're waiting for the justice system to take its cause. Please respect our family's privacy as we remember the anniversary of Laura's death. Peter's family in New Zealand received a call from the RCMP. to let them know that he'd been arrested. His ex-wife Wendy had remarried, and their four children were then aged 18 to 30. They were too traumatised to give a statement,

but Wendy's husband told the Dominion Post that Peter had not kept in contact with any of his children or his ex-wife after he moved to Canada some nine years earlier. Peter remained in custody until his trial. While he was there, he made friends with his cellmate, a man who was described later by Kamloops this week as a small-time career criminal. And this cellmate would end up contacting the RCMP with an interesting story to tell. Peter and the cellmate had exchanged stories about the crimes that had landed them in prison. Peter insisted that he was innocent and went on to tell his version of a version of a version of a victim.

As you'll remember, the version he told the RCMP was that he heard a splash and a scream, and that's how he knew Laura had fallen off the boat. But he told a slightly different version to his neighbour John, the retired police officer, which was that he just happened to look back and saw that she wasn't there. And it was this different version that he also told to his cellmate. Quote, He said that he didn't notice she had fallen off, and by the time he did, he could see her flailing under water. The cellmate immediately saw the issue with this story.

Peter, being the mountainous man that he was, didn't notice a shift in weight distribution at one end of an inflatable boat? The cellmate told him, quote, If that's your version, you're fucked. The bow of the boat would have been standing straight. in the air as soon as she fell off. The cellmate noted that when Peter heard this feedback, his story started to change. He tried to clarify. He told the cellmate that, quote,

she just kind of slowly lowered herself in, kind of stealth into the water, basically like a suicide. So first, Peter said it was an accident, and now it seemed to be changing to a suicide. The cellmate reported that he and Peter became tight, but at the same time, the cellmate was about to be released from prison and he felt like Peter was grooming him for something. According to the cellmate, it didn't take long for that to be revealed.

Peter gave him a list of five names. On the list were both of Laura's parents, their family lawyer, who he thought altered her will. Virginia, Laura's cousin and close friend, who reported the conversation where Laura claimed Peter told her he knew exactly how she was going to die, and it would be drowning. And the last name was the lead RCMP investigator. At first, the cellmate went along with it, but as the conversation developed, it became clear that Peter expected him to arrange to take out or kill those witnesses when he, he was released from prison. The cellmate would say that once he started learning more about the case, his own feelings changed.

His sister had been murdered more than a decade beforehand, and he remembered the effect that it had on his family. He decided that he wanted to do something right for once. Quote, even as a hardened, seasoned criminal, something told me that Laura and her family and these potential targets, I had to do something to prevent this from happening. For the first time in my life, I gave the RCMP information. After he contacted the RCMP, he signed his first ever contract to be a police informant in exchange for $10,000.

And the conspiracy continued to unfold, with the informant now reporting everything back to police. He and Peter developed a code to discuss targets on the phone, and Peter told him all about money and riches that were waiting for him on the outside. For example, the informant claimed Peter told him he had diamonds stashed in his jaguar in the windshield wiper reservoir. He also drew a map showing where Laura's parents lived, and they made tentative plans to murder them by burning down their house with them in it. Peter believed that this would free their money. He also indicated where a stash of dynamite could be found, which he recommended could be utilized as a weapon, and the remainder could be sold on the black market to pay for the additional hits.

All Peter wanted was for the cellmate to call on his criminal friends on the outside to see if anyone wanted a hit job. Peter dropped the hint that if the hire did a good job, there could be a relocation to Costa Rica on the cards. The evidence provided by the cellmate turned informant allowed the police to lay more charges. Peter Beckett was charged with five counts of conspiracy to commit murder.

This news was obviously of great shock to Laura's parents and her cousin Virginia. As Peter waited in Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre for his trial date, journalist Tim Petrick from Camloops this week, visited him there more than 20 times. Peter made a point of telling the journalist that he knew his cellmate was a prison informant within half an hour of meeting him, so he just played along. Peter said, quote,

I told him exactly what I told everyone else about my understanding of my case. He claimed that the reason he gave those five names to the informant was that he'd been offered the use of a private investigator. He didn't want to murder those people. He just wanted them investigated, he said. He claimed the informant lied. Quote, why would I want any of these five people murdered? I needed them as defense witnesses. They're vital to my defense. He said he believed the RCMP had wrongfully imprisoned him and accused them of inventing a crime that didn't exist, so they could get a financial incentive for solving it. In the lead up to the trial, Peter Beckett caused a lot of drama.

After hiring four lawyers in the time between his arrest and his trial, and then firing each one, Peter declared he would represent himself. According to Camloops this week, he was a prolific filer of applications during their pre-trial court processes, often submitting heavy stacks of handwritten pages claiming that there was collusion between the judge, the crown, and the RCMP. In one application, he insisted that his lineage went back to St. Thomas Beckett of Canterbury from the 12th century, a man who was apparently celibate and fathered no children. Peter claimed that no one in that lineage had ever been charged with a crime.

In another application, he compared a BC Supreme Court judge to an Australian sponge cake. Still representing himself, Peter requested access to the Crown's evidence. The judge instructed the Crown prosecutor to provide it all to him on a hard drive. Peter protested saying that he wasn't comfortable with technology. When he was given the hard drive, he managed to. to smuggle it illegally out of prison and refused to return it. This caused a massive delay in the trial. A justice official close to the case called Beckett the ultimate test of the system.

The trial started in January of 2016, in Kamloops, British Columbia, for the first-degree murder charge. The additional five charges for conspiring to kill witnesses was considered a separate issue and that case was still pending. Just as the trial was about to start, Peter Beckett got a lawyer to represent him. The Crown's theory was that Laura was killed out of greed. Peter had taken several steps to acquire accidental death insurance several weeks before Laura's death because Laura was planning to leave him so she could reconcile with her parents. He wanted access to her money, life-admiral.

insurance policies and inheritance, according to the Crown. Quote, he would also collect her schoolteacher's pension for the rest of his days, which he would spend in the house she owned when they were married, so he took her out on the zodiac to a secluded cove with the intention of causing her to fall from the boat and drown. The defence argued that it was not the Beckett's marriage that was strained, but instead it was Laura's relationship with her own family that was the root of her problems. Through his lawyers, Peter was going to claim that these family problems resulted in her depression

and she could have been suicidal. The jury watched the video of the reenactment in the boat, where Peter showed the three RCMP investigators where the boat was and gave them a play-by-play as to what happened. Laura's mother Beth testified about Laura's unhappiness in the marriage and how she supported her daughter during the separation. But then, her relationship with Laura deteriorated after she and Peter reconciled, and the family found out that Peter had been married before. On cross-examination, Peter's lawyer implied that Laura had been shunned or excommunicated by her family,

which was what made her depressed. Laura's mother denied that allegation, saying that the reason why she cut off contact with her daughter was because the stress of the situation had aggravated a medical condition she had. His lawyer also asked her about Laura's alleged rape as a child at the hands of a worker on the family farm, with the implication that perhaps it contributed to her depression.

Beth replied, I don't know that, and added that Laura told her about it several years after it happened. Darrell, the paramedic who confirmed Laura's death once the pontoon boat had pulled up at the campsite, testified that Peter asked him a strange question at the time. Quote, he asked me if there was going to be bruises on his wife. I was a little taken aback. Darrell testified that he told Peter there might be bruises on her back where she was dragged across the rocks to shore, but he said he noticed no bruising at the time. The pathologist who conducted the autopsy on Laura's body testified that there was an area of redness near her left cheekbone

and said that pre-mortem injury, or injury that happens before death, can't be ruled out. but he added that finding unexplained red areas on bodies wasn't uncommon. He also testified that he found no evidence of CPR having been performed on Laura's body. When CPR is done with appropriate vigour, he said chest injuries like fractured ribs and red skin are common. The court heard testimony from other witnesses at the scene as well as friends of the couple. One of them was Laura's cousin and friend Virginia, who testified about that intense argument Peter and Laura had when they were together in Calgary, the same year that they separated. But the next part of Virginia's story, where Laura confided in her later about Peter's prediction that she was going to die by drowning, was not allowed as evidence since it was hearsay. Peter's cellmate turned RCMP informant

testified that it was the first time he'd ever cooperated with the police. Quote, given my background and history, my record, that's probably the worst thing someone of my calibre could do, to say the least. It's against every con code known to man. He said he went into segregation in prison shortly after the additional charges for conspiracy to commit murder were laid on Peter. Under cross-examination, the defence tried to portray him as an unreliable psychopath, who may have lied and entrapped Peter for the money.

He fervently denied it. During the trial, Peter Beckett continued to bring the high drama, but never while the jury was in the room. Reporter Tim Petrick for Kamloops this week described how on several occasions when the lawyers had to argue something in front of the judge and the jury was excused, Peter would be seen to have loud outbursts. When the jury came back, he was observed to be muttering under his breath. The judge cautioned him frequently about these incidents. On another occasion, his pants fell off as he stood up as the jury left the room. Peter's trial was in

2016, when Donald Trump was trying to get the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidency. On one occasion, before the jury entered, Peter Beckett endorsed Donald Trump's run for president, telling the court that Trump is what America needs because he's a, quote, proven businessman. 61-year-old Peter took the stand in his defense, even though his legal team had advised him against it. His lawyer's first question for him was a straightforward one. Did you push your wife off the boat or drown her? He replied, No, I did not.

With his loud, booming voice and thick New Zealand accent, he proceeded to give a rambling history of how he met Laura, which was rife with tangential stories and littered with random New Zealand trivia. For example, from the stand he told the court that the word Kiwi the affectionate word for a New Zealander does not actually come from the Kiwi fruit. They're named after the Kiwi bird, which is flightless. He then spoke about the day Laura died, describing earlier that day when they both went shopping together

and Laura had her haircut before their planned evening boat ride. Peter painted a happy picture of the day. But then, he claimed that Laura's death was probably the result of suicide. He told the court that the rape she suffered as a child caused her years of depression. On cross-examination, the Crown said that Peter's happy depiction of both the day and Laura's state of mind was not consistent with someone who was severely depressed. He was told that he can't have it both ways. Was she happy and getting her hair done?

Or was she depressed and suicidal? The Crown prosecutor told the court that when Laura's body was pulled from the water, her shirt was on backwards. He suggested to Peter that it came off when he was drowning her, and then he reclothed her in a way that did not make sense. In reply, Peter said the prosecutor disgusted him. The Crown suggested that it was helpful for Peter to have Laura in a situation where she would drown unless he saved her. Peter replied that this was offensive and total nonsense. Peter was also pressed about the variations in his stories. For example, in his RCMP statement, he said that he heard a splash and Laura screaming and flailing in the water, but he told his neighbour and cellmate that he heard nothing at all.

On the stand, Peter insisted that the correct version was that he heard nothing. Quote, drowning is a silent death. People think it's panicking and screaming. It's not. It's a silent death, apparently, I've done a lot of research. Peter Beckett's drama continued with a Haka performance on the second day of his cross-examination, again when the jury were out of the room. The Haka is the iconic Maori ceremonial dance, known for stamping of the feet,

vigorous arm movements and the aggressive poking out of tongues. Generally, the harker is performed in front of an opponent to demonstrate strength and prowess and ultimately intimidate them. Rugby team, the New Zealand All Blacks, are famous for performing the haka on the field just before a game. After Peter's Haka performance, he declared that he was Rongo Kaka of Timata and told court officials to Google it. According to Google, he was referring to a Kiwi legend depicting a sleeping giant who bit his way through a hill to prove how dedicated he was to the woman he loved, and instead he ended up choking and dying.

One of the witnesses for the defence was a friend of the couple named Anita, who was a vocal supporter of Peter. According to Kamloops this week, she described Laura as a brilliant person who was willing to do any. anything for anyone, but she was also a troubled soul who had difficulty accepting help. Quote, you could tell there were things that were troubling her and it took a lot to get her to understand that there were people who were there for her. Anita said she didn't agree with others who called Peter overbearing and domineering. Quote, like any relationship, certain tasks were delegated to certain people. Peter is a gregarious guy, but Laura was never shadowed by him. She was confident being around and with him. Anita told the court that Laura's

confidence took a big hit when her family openly shunned her after they learned Peter had been married before. She said Laura didn't know why her parents treated her that way and that it was a great source of sadness for her. As you remember, Laura wasn't able to swim. Some friends had commented that she was terrified of the water and always wore a life jacket. In one statement, Peter said that she had a life jacket on and took it off when she got hot, but later he maintained that she never wore a life jacket and didn't have it on. It was just draped around her shoulders to carry it conveniently. Anita, the defence witness, agreed with Peter.

She told the court that she went on numerous boat trips with Laura and Peter and never saw Laura wearing a life jacket. She told the court that she asked Laura why she didn't wear one, and Laura replied that she, quote, Always thought Peter would save her. Anita also said that after Laura's death, Peter went to stay with her and her husband, and they witnessed his grief and sadness over the loss of his wife.

After a while, she said it got too much to be around, so they eventually asked him to leave. In closing arguments, the Crown focused on the number of inconsistencies in Peter's statements to police and to other witnesses. They argued that it was clear his statement was a fabrication, and this meant he was responsible for Laura's death. Quote, all of his lies demonstrate that he is responsible for getting her in the water and keeping her there until she drowned.

The prosecutor asked the jury to consider that fishermen's instinct, story where Peter's first action when he noticed Laura was in the water was not to rescue her, but to reel in his fishing rod. Quote, Mr. Beckett tells you that when his wife falls in the water, his instinct is to turn away from her. What would it be like to reel in a fishing rod while floating by a loved one who was flailing, kicking and screaming in the water next to them? The Crown also referred to Peter's story about using a rock from the shore to sink himself down to Laura's body so he could pull it to shore. This story was described as defying common sense.

Quote, the accused is lying to you about finding a rock and doing anything to save Laura. He wasn't trying to save her because he was trying to kill her. The jury was told that in order for them to convict Peter Beckett, The Crown does not have to prove how Laura was killed, only that Peter Beckett was responsible. The defence insisted that it was nothing more than a tragic accident, and the Crown's case was purely circumstantial. Quote, imagine if you were found guilty of murder simply because you were present for the demise of your spouse. The defence argued that the theory of financial motive didn't stand up. Laura handled all the insurance paperwork.

It wasn't a huge amount of money, they said. In fact, Peter didn't even claim on the life insurance policies in the months after her death. And besides, if Peter was motivated by money at all, he would have been better off keeping Laura alive. The defence claimed that the cellmate turned RCMP informant was self-serving and unreliable and also lied in court. And in any event, regardless of what the cellmate may have said, Peter never made any real efforts to secure potential inheritance from Laura's parents. With that, it was time for the jury to deliberate. And they took their time.

After a week, they were unable to reach a consensus. One juror was still at odds with the others, a hung jury. It was declared a mistrial. Even though jury deliberations are secret, and there was no way to know which way the majority of jurors were leaning, Peter declared that he knew for a fact that 11 of them wanted him acquitted. He speculated that maybe the 12th juror was planted to prevent that. From jail, he told Camloops this week that he believed justice officials were out to get him, and Laura's family were behind it.

He said he was disgusted by the court process and insisted that the Crown's theory that he lied was not enough of a basis to convict him of first-degree murder. Quote, Kangaroo Court doesn't even begin to describe what goes on in Kamloops. The mistrial triggered a second trial. In the lead-up, the Crown decided not to prosecute the five charges of conspiracy to commit murder, so the only charge left on the table was for first-degree murder. Peter's lawyers tried to have this charge dropped too,

saying the case had been delayed for too long, but this was dismissed. The second trial was held in Colonna, British Columbia, where Peter's defence argued he'd have a better chance at a fair trial. This trial was more focused than the first one, with the crown honing in on the events of the day Laura died, and the inconsistencies in Peter's various statements about what happened. This time, Peter did not take the stand in his defence. After four days, the jury reached a verdict.

They found Peter Beckett guilty of first-degree murder. He received the mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for at least 25 years. But that wasn't the end. Peter appealed the decision arguing that the case was circumstantial. On September 29th, 2020, the BC Court of Appeal agreed, concluding that the judge made errors in instructing the jury and prosecutors made improper submissions to jurors. The main issue was the fact that the prosecution presented Peter's initial statement to police as being a lie and then argued that this lie was a lie was a. proof of his guilt. The facts of the case were that Laura went into the water and drowned,

but there was no physical evidence that it was Peter who caused her to enter the water. It was impossible to determine that his statement was a lie, so in effect, the Crown presented unproven facts to jurors as if they were evidence, and the trial judge supported this. The BC Court of Appeal overturned Peter's guilty verdict. But it stopped short of a full acquittal, which means that it's now up to the Crown to decide whether it wants to move forward with a third trial. The decision details the Court's conclusion

that the Crown's case was not a strong one. One of the justices said, quote, in these circumstances, a very real question arises as to whether it is in the interests of justice to proceed with yet a third trial. Camloops this week provided an exclusive update that on November 2nd, 2020, lawyers met in court to discuss the status of the case. The judge was told that prosecutors are still in the process of deciding what they want to do.

They have three options. First, they could hold a third trial. Second, they could appeal the BC Court of Appeals decision to overturn Peter's conviction, or third, they could let him walk free. Now in his mid-60s, Peter Beckett has been in prison for nine years. He will likely find out by the end of this month whether he will be a free man again. I'll be sure to keep you updated. Laura Letts would have celebrated her 60th birthday this year.

Her online obituary ended with lyrics from a Ronan Keating song that referenced her quiet, reserved and gentle nature. Quote, The smile on her face, the truth in her eyes, the touch of her hand let us know what she needed. She said it best when she said nothing at all. Thanks for listening and special thanks to journalist Tim Patrick

from Camloops this week for suggesting this case and for his assistance in the production of the episode. Tim interviewed Peter more than 20 times in prison and also traveled to Alberta to talk with people who knew the couple. His long form article on the case was picked up by New Zealand media outlets. Tim and I had a chat about his experiences with reporting on the case and dealing with Peter Beckett both before and during the first trial. I started by asking him how he arranged the prison interviews with Peter Beckett and whether there was a formal process that he had to follow as a journalist. There's a lot of hoops kind of that you have to jump through.

The process that I was taught for setting it up is just to write a letter to the prisoner that you want to talk to, ask them to put you on their list of people who they can talk to on the phone and then build a relationship and hopefully they'll put you on their visitor list. So did you tell him, well obviously you did that you were a journalist and you wanted to report on what he was saying? Yeah, he knew. I mean, I had seen him at the courthouse for, I think, I want to say years before we ever met in prison. It might have been a year.

It's hard to say. It was, this case has gone on for so long. But I would see him at the courthouse regularly. And he, just because of his physical condition, he was in a wheelchair for a lot of his appearances. So they would bring him not through the back, like through the prisoner entrance into the courtroom. But they would bring him up the elevator. that the public uses in the courthouse and in through the front door of the courtroom. And he's so chatty.

He's a very talkative guy and he would just from the elevator to the courtroom would just talk your ear off. So we had a bit of a rapport established before we ever met at jail. And what did you make of him when you met him? He's a really interesting guy. He's a smart guy. He's a well-spoken guy and he likes to talk. And he's funny.

He's, yeah, he's, I mean, I sound like I'm kind of gushing over him, but I don't mean to do. But he's, he's an really interesting guy to talk to. Obviously, aside from whatever he's alleged to have done, he's an interesting guy to talk to. Did you find that he was consistent between your interviews and how he appeared in your interviews and his court appearances? Yeah, Peter, the entire time that I've known him, has always. always been very consistent in terms of how he carries himself, how he speaks, his tone, and his just steadfast denial of his guilt. He's been super consistent the entire time. So I told you that I grew up in New Zealand and I was quite amused to hear about all of the

the different Kiwi things he said and the Kiwi words he was using. You know, like I liked how in one clip he mentioned a chili bin, which is what we call an Eski in Australia. And I think a cooler in Canada, a cooler box, cooler bin. I don't know. That was quite funny. But then he pivoted to the next sentence. He said something and then he said, A, at the end, which I found the juxtaposition of the Kiwi words and then the Canadian slang quite funny. But what did you learn about New Zealand because of him? Like, what was the craziest things that you never expected to learn about New Zealand? Every time Peter told me something about New Zealand, I would Google it, just to be sure,

because he has a way of spinning things in his favor when he taught. I mean, he told me about this legend of a sleeping giant who was awoken, referring to himself at one point in court, which was interesting. And he did a haka at one point in the courtroom, which I think even people who are very unfamiliar or just casually familiar with New Zealand, a haka is probably something that everyone knows and associates with that place. How did the haka come about? Like I've seen it written that he performed the haka, but how did he wind that into the court proceedings?

The way it works if you've never been in a courtroom. And I think most people don't really know how it works exactly. But before the judge comes in and the jury comes in, there's like a couple minutes where it's typically the lawyers, the accused, the clerk, the sheriff, and whoever else is, you know, watching. And there's the clerk setting things up and people are kind of chitchhating. And during those little lulls or waiting periods, that's when Peter would sometimes turn to the gallery and put on a show.

And the Haka was, I believe, if I recall correctly, was one of those where it was before everyone else was in the courtroom. And I think it's when he was testifying. I'm pretty sure he was in the witness box. And he just kind of, if I recall, he just turned to the courtroom and did kind of like a brief Haka. What did everybody do at the time? Were they just staring in disbelief?

Or was there some laughing or? I think most of the people in the courtroom didn't pay Peter much attention in those moments because I think rightly or wrongly, I don't know. There is a belief among probably the lawyers that were there that indulging him kind of like a certain kind of child might provoke more. And Peter and I had a bit of a relationship at that point. So he would often turn to me. Like with the sleeping giant thing, he turned to me and he said, I think it was Ranga

is that it? Ranga kaka of tomato. Yeah, he said that. And then he said, that's me, Google it or something like that. Oh, so he said that directly to you. Yeah. And that was from, he was standing in the witness box in that one of those lulls waiting for court to get set up.

And he turned to the gallery and looked at me and said it. Yeah. And the Haka, I don't remember if it was directed at me. It probably wasn't. But it was, yeah, there was a lot of moments like that. What do you think was the most shocking thing that he did? He has a personality that, like, he's very loud. He's very, I don't know if performative is the right word, but he's like, he's always, I guess performative is a good word. He's always kind of putting on a show. And there were lots of moments like that. He talked, this was when Donald Trump was running.

There was, I think he was the nominee at that point in 2016 in the U.S. election. And he talked about Donald Trump and how he'd be good for the U.S. There was many moments like that. The most shocking, surprising thing that stands out to me from Peter in court is his attitude when he was being cross-examined. He was so combative. He took things so personally, it appeared to me. And, you know, who knows? Peter has all kinds of feelings about the motivations behind the prosecution after his wife's death.

Yeah, it's in the episode, you know, he thinks that it's a big conspiracy and it's driven by Laura's parents. Yeah. And he just, he got into it with the Crown prosecutor. And it was, it was like they were going back and forth. It was probably the most intense back and forth exchange on a protracted scale that I've ever seen in a courtroom. Was this the one where he told the prosecutor that he disgusted him and the prosecutor said, well, I am the prosecutor of the case, so I have to say these things. Or was the incident you're referring to stranger than that? No, I think that was probably part of it. Yeah, it was hardly.

They were going at it pretty good. But, I mean, Peter the entire time throughout the entire court process in the years leading up to his trial, he was always really combative, not usually ugly like that, because it wasn't usually, there wasn't really a back and forth to it. He was just making, you know, accusations and claims, typically. But I mean, he would rattle off insults that the judge and the lawyers and me and whoever else was there at times. Like, that's a guy who believes, or at least he has main. contained so strongly that he did not do this. And he's been in jail for nine years. So whether, I mean, I don't know whether he did it or not. But if you think about it from the perspective, if you think you were in jail for nine years for something you didn't do, you'd probably be really combative, angry too. Yeah. Yep. That's a very good point. It doesn't make it right. And like I said, who knows what happened. But it's something to think about when you see stuff like that. So Laura's cousin, Virginia's testimony, it wasn't allowed in court.

and this is the testimony where Laura told her cousin that Peter predicted that she would die of drowning. Did you ever speak to Peter about this in prison? And what was his explanation if you did? We talked about it quite a bit because that was a really big piece of the Crown's case before it was ultimately not allowed to be used during the trial. And Peter 100% denied that it ever happened. He said it was just completely made up a total fact. abracation by the cousin. And he said that for years. And he said the same thing the entire time.

It never changed at all. He said there's just there's absolutely nothing to it. I wonder what motivation the cousin would have to say something like that if it wasn't true. It's very strange. So you will, I know you also interviewed people who knew the couple in Alberta. You traveled there to talk to people and witnesses. What was your perspective of the the situation? I spent a couple days in Westlock. That's the small town where they live, where Laura's from. And I talked to people who supported Peter, who knew the couple, who were friends with

the couple, and believed Peter. And I talked to people who knew the couple, and I talked to co-workers of Laura's and friends of Laura's who thought Peter murdered her. So there's people who believe both things. And during the trial, there was a woman from Westlock named Wendy, Brayton. Bright Cruise, who basically moved to Camloops for six months or however long the trial was, and spent every single day in the courtroom. She was very good friends with Laura, and she was definitely not on Team Peter.

She also went to the Colonna trial, she told me. So there's, I mean, there's people, it's not like the entire town of Westlock thinks Peter did this, or thinks Peter's innocent. There's people on both sides. Did you ever speak with Laura's parents? I did not. I tried to a couple of times and I had no luck. I was told through kind of other channels that Laura's family didn't want to talk to anyone, like media-wise. So I respected that and I stopped trying to talk to them. I would really, I would really be interested to though if they ever

changed their mind. Now with the appeal, it's quite rare to have a first-degree murder conviction thrown over on appeal. Were you expecting it to go this way? No, I wasn't. I was really surprised. But again, I wasn't at the Kelowna trial, so I didn't see it. And I didn't see the things that were appealed. But just knowing what I knew of the case, I was quite surprised when I found out that

he'd won his appeal. Yeah, it's something that doesn't happen every day. it's a pretty big deal. And yeah, it was definitely a surprise. Do you keep tabs on what the word on the street is now? Like, are people thinking that the crown will choose to drop it? Or do you think they'll press ahead with a third trial? Do you have any insights into that? I've talked to some people at the courthouse. I've talked to one person who's very close to that second trial that was appealed. And everything I've heard is that it's quite unlikely that there will be a third trial. But who knows? It's ultimately in the hands of this one prosecutor in Kamloops. And he has until

the end of November to decide Peter's fate, really. There's also the possibility that the Crown will appeal the decision overturning Peter's conviction. I don't know what the likelihood of that is, really. I haven't talked to anyone. I don't know those Crown appeal lawyers. who do that stuff. So I don't even know how I would try to find out how that's going. So yeah, that's a chance also. But everything I've heard about the third trial is that it's quite unlikely. But who knows? So out of everything to do with this case, for you, what's the most mysterious thing that you just can't figure out? Like there's so many vague aspects to this case. What for you is like the sticking point? I don't know if there's one like mystery that really,

stands out to me. Obviously, did Peter kill his wife? That's a question. The thing that really stands out to me about this case is just like the dichotomy, like the two extreme ends of the spectrum when you talk to Peter about his relationship with Laura and it's just like a storybook, like romantic comedy, just perfect fairy tale love story. And then you read that affidavit that this is how you're going to die affidavit and you hear the things in court that were said and you think of, you know, Peter murdering Laura allegedly. And like those things are just so far apart. That's what I find most interesting about this case is just kind of the vast, like the gap between those two ends of this. Did he ever talk about, you know, there was that incident where

Laura reported to the police that there was some kind of abusive incident. Did he ever? Did he ever talk about, you know, there was, incident. Did he ever reference those kind of things? Like, did he deny it? Or did he ever say something like, you know, our marriage wasn't perfect? It had its issues. It just seems to me like he constantly maintained that it was the perfect marriage. Even though there was this like direct evidence, I mean, sure, the prediction of drowning thing, he could dispute that, but he could not dispute the fact that there was a police report put in for some kind of abuse. Did he ever talk about that? He did. I mean, the police report went nowhere, so you wonder about it. I don't know what happened. When I talked to Peter about it, he said that, I mean, he admitted, don't get me wrong, he admitted that him and Laura would argue, like any couple argues about things. But specifically about the police report, I did talk to him about it, and he said that Laura was put up to it by her family because they were very unhappy with her being with a divorced guy. essentially is what he said.

That's interesting. Yeah. Again, thank you so much to Tim Petrick from Camloops this week for suggesting this case and for giving me some of his valuable time. Thanks also to Hagar Barak for the Research Overview, the host of True for voicing the disclaimer, and also to We Talk of Dreams who compose the theme song. I am getting the hell out of here,

but I'll be back soon with another Canadian true crime story. See you then.